The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants challenging the order and decreetal order dated 25.8.2009 passed in I.A.No.7953 of 2009 in O.S.No.6054 of 2000 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The suit was filed for recovery of money payable by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally to the respondent/defendant bank. The suit was filed in the year 2000. Written statement of the first defendant was filed on 19.9.2001. Written statement of the second defendant was filed on 6.2.2001. Thereafter, witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. The revision petitioners/Defendants also examined a Chartered Accountant as can be seen from the affidavit filed in I.A.No.7953 of 2009. Since the respondent/plaintiff challenges the evidence of the Chartered Accountant let in by the revision petitioners/defendants, the revision petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.7953 of 2009 stating that Exs.A-8 and A-17 marked by the respondent/plaintiff, which are extracts of the bank's ledger, are contradictory to each other and to prove the same a Chartered Accountant should be asked to give his opinion.
3. The application I.A.No.7953 of 2009 was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs and the court below dismissed the I.A.No.7953 of 2009 primarily stating as follows: The suit is of the year 2000. The suit is posted for arguments after completion of evidence. The I.A.No.7953 of 2009 is filed on 9.1.2009 to drag on the proceedings. The court below further held that if as contended by the revision petitioners/defendants, Exs.A-8 and A-17, the extracts of ledger of the respondent/plaintiff bank are contradictory, it is for the court to consider the same on merits and there is no need for appointment of a Chartered Accountant. The court also observed that the revision petitioners/defendants have examined a Chartered Accountant as D.W.3. On this premise, the application I.A.No.7953 of 2009 was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition is filed by the defendants.
4. The main plea taken in the revision petition is on the merits of the documents Exs.A-8 and A-17, the extracts of the respondent/plaintiff bank ledger. The revision petitioners/defendants tried to convince the court that as per Ex.A-8 no sale was effected and as per Ex.A-17 a sum of Rs.9,000/- shown as the sale value of the photocopying machine, the property seized for the money claim. This contention appears to be the primary reason for filing the revision petition.
5. As rightly pointed out by the court below, it is for the revision petitioners/defendants to satisfy the court and point out the discrepancy in the documents and it is also for the court to decide with regard to the contradictions in documents Exs.A-8 and A-17 as alleged by the revision petitioners/defendants. The questions of fact which have to be adjudicated by the trial court cannot be raised as a plea in the revision petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, as per the statement of the revision petitioners/defendants, the documents Exs.A-8 and A-17 were marked in the year 2004. It is not clear as to why the revision petitioners/defendants waited for long five years to raise such a dispute on the document. In this case, the suit is posted for arguments after completion of evidence on either side. The defendants/revision petitioners apparently have filed the application to drag on the proceedings instead of concluding the trial. This court finds no merit in the plea raised in the revision petition which are admittedly questions of fact which this court is not inclined to consider under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no illegality, infirmity in the order of the court below dismissing the application.
6. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.